Language Access in CA Elections, Past & Future FOCE Conference - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Meeting the Needs of a Diversifying Electorate: Language Access in CA Elections, Past & Future FOCE Conference 2017

Need for Language Assistance During Elections Language is a significant barrier to the ability of many to vote CA Latinos CA Asian Americans Speak a language 75% 76% other than English at home Limited English 34% 36% proficient 2

Language Assistance During Elections Under Federal Law • §203 of the VRA – Written and oral assistance when language group reaches threshold size and has high rate of English illiteracy – Analysis every 5 years (Dec 2016) • §208 of the VRA – Voters who are unable to read/write have a right to bring helper of choice 3

Language Assistance Under Section 203 (Federal Law) Election officials must provide: • translations of written materials that are generally provided to voters (including the mailing of election materials to voters who request assistance) • oral assistance at poll sites • pre-election publicity of the language assistance 4

Language Assistance During Elections Under California Law • Elections Code §14201 –Posted translated “facsimile” copy of ballot w/instructions for language groups reaching threshold size – No requirement to mail to voters – Analysis every Jan. of a gubernatorial election (Dec 2013) • Elections Code §12303 – Oral assistance – Analysis every Jan. of a gubernatorial election (Dec 2013) 5

Language Access Coverage in California • All but 2 counties are covered by one or both • Section 203 coverage: – 27 counties • 26 for Spanish • 9 for at least 1 Asian language • 2 for Native American languages • State Elections Code coverage: – 50 counties 6

Importance of Language Assistance in Asian American Communities • Use of language assistance in Los Angeles – 32% of Asian Americans • Use by ethnicity in Los Angeles – 11% Filipino Americans – 46% Chinese Americans – 50% Korean Americans 7

AAAJ- CA’s Work in 2016 1. Community Education/Outreach 2. Meetings with Registrar of Voters 3. Advocacy for Best Practices 4. Poll Monitoring

Where We Worked Rank County Pop. 1 Los Angeles County 10,170,292 2016 2 San Diego County 3,299,521 26 counties 3 Orange County 3,169,776 34.9 million people 4 Riverside County 2,361,026 5 San Bernardino County 2,128,133 89% of California 6 Santa Clara County 1,918,044 7 Alameda County 1,638,215 8 Sacramento County 1,501,335 9 Contra Costa County 1,126,745 10 Fresno County 974,861 11 Kern County 882,176 San Francisco County 864,816 12 Ventura County 850,536 13 San Mateo County 765,135 14 15 San Joaquin County 726,106 16 Stanislaus County 538,388 17 Sonoma County 502,146 18 Tulare County 459,863 19 Santa Barbara County 444,769 20 Solano County 436,092 9

Community Education and Outreach Partnered with 20 community-based organizations (CBOs), each serving one or more minority language community in counties of focus. 1. Distributed Know Your Voting Rights (KYVR) materials created by Advancing Justice in 13 languages. 2. Hosted KYVR trainings and first-time voter workshops. 3. Connected CBOs and community leaders with county elections offices. 4. Recruited volunteers for poll monitoring.

Meetings with ROVs • Inquired into language access practices, including: • Compliance with federal & state law requirements • Use of best practices • Legal requirements: Corrected and nudged as needed. • Best practices: Collected innovative ideas from counties & advocated for their wider use.

Best Practices Advocacy • Counties have considerable discretion when meeting federal & state law requirements. Practices vary. • Advancing Justice created suite of best practices w/ NALEO. Shared with every county. • Hosted two webinars w/ NALEO. • Acted as hub of wheel, sharing example docs across counties and regions.

Limited Poll Monitoring – June ‘16 The Yolo Turnaround Yolo County in June 2016 primary: • 13 of 16 polling places missing facsimiles. • Facsimiles in need of improvement. Action taken: Initiated relationship w/ ROV Salinas, shared info about legal requirements and best practices. Partnered through change management. Yolo County in November 2016 general: • Top performer: 3 out of 71 facsimiles missing (4.2%) • Facsimiles improved. • Two best practices implemented.

Jesse Salinas Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters Yolo County

Youth Development and Community Outreach • 7 staff members • Work focused in: – Kern, Fresno, Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Sacramento, Sutter, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties • 25 high school chapters • 8 collegiate chapters

Transformation in 2016 • Distributing KYR materials in English/Punjabi • Hosted educational workshops with AAAJ in Fresno, Merced, and Sutter Counties • Recruited 35 poll monitors in 4 counties

A Community Under Siege A Community Under Siege

A Community Developing Power

Much Work to Do 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 Hindi Punjabi 2000 1000 0

Sneak Peak: Advancing Justice’s Poll Monitoring Results November 2016 Final report coming April 2017

Section 203 Ballots Compliance with most significant 2000 1800 language access requirement in 1896 1600 Section 203 of the federal Voting 1400 Rights Act -- provision of translated 1200 1000 ballots -- was very strong. 800 600 3.6% 3.6% 400 200 68 0 Expected Missing Less success in consistently Sec. 203 Supplementary Materials providing translated copies of 1000 supplementary materials voters 900 896 800 may need to vote. 700 600 500 22% (State Voter Guide, County Sample 400 300 Ballot, and Voter Bill of Rights) 200 196 100 0 Polling places Polling places missing requiring Section 203 at least one Section supplementary 203 supplementary materials material

Facsimile Ballots CA elections officials 1000 struggled to meet the primary 900 requirement in the state law: 948 provision of a translated copy 800 of the ballot (aka “facsimile ballot”) at specified polling 700 places. 600 In some large, diverse 500 counties, 40+% of facsimile ballots were missing. 25% 400 Some poll workers had 300 difficulty identifying and 200 posting a facsimile when 234 asked, admitting in some 100 cases they did not know what the facsimile ballot was. 0 # expected # missing

Recruitment of BPW who spoke languages Recruitment of BPW covered by state law overall was very strong. was weak. Bilingual Poll Workers (BPW) BPW Speaking State Law Languages 1,200 900 1,000 800 1,011 799 700 62% 800 600 600 500 496 400 8.2% 400 300 200 200 83 100 0 0 Polling places visited Polling places lacking Targeted # of poll workers Sec. 12303(c) bilingual poll BPW under Section 12303(c) workers missing

Best Practices • Bilingual poll workers are inconsistently identified for voters who need them. • Signage that would alert voters to presence of facsimile ballots not used in uniform way. BPW Nametags BPW Signage Facsimile Ballot Signage 1000 800 900 600 700 928 800 711 600 700 500 540 600 500 40% 32% 400 500 41% 400 400 300 300 300 296 200 200 281 200 221 100 100 0 100 Polling places with Polling places with 0 0 bilingual poll BPW in which workers BPW not wearing Polling places with Polling places with Polling places with Polling places with name tags BPW, AAAJ-ALC BPW in which no facsimiles, AAAJ- facsimiles in which identifying counties signage identifying ALC counties no signage language skills language skills indicates availability

California May Have a Previously Unrecognized Voter ID Problem • 41 polling places visited had some kind of Voter ID problem (3.2%). • One county had Voter ID problems at 10% of polling places. Several others were almost 5%. Motives vary, but do not matter: • Intent to disenfranchise. (?) • Mistaken but good faith belief they are safe-guarding the integrity of election. • Convenience/efficiency in finding voters on roster. • Difficult to spell/understand name.

In Summary • Federal law compliance was solid. • State law compliance needs improvement and was much worse that federal law compliance. • Truth is: state law’s language access requirements must be improved to adequately serve LEP voters.

Opportunities for Improvement In State Law’s Requirements Consider the facsimile ballot: 1. State law does not require any information be provided to voters in advance of ED about what facsimile ballots are and where to find them. 2. State law does not require translated signage in polling places to guide voters to facsimiles. 3. State law does not require poll worker training about facsimiles. 4. Even if facsimile is found, voter has to vote on English ballot while standing at wall or kiosk. Private vote denied. 5. Facsimiles unavailable to vote-by-mail voters.